24 American Journal of Clinical Medicine® • Summer 2009 • Volume Six, Number Three
Physiologic Mechanisms Associated with
the Trendelenburg Position
Richard L. Summers, MD
James R. Thompson, MD
LouAnn H. Woodward, MD
David S. Martin, BS
Abstract
Introduction:  The Trendelenburg position is a common inter-
vention used to stabilize patients in hemodynamic shock. It has
been assumed that the head-down tilt position would create a
hydrostatic gradient to improve venous return and, therefore,
increase the cardiac output. However, numerous studies have
shown this maneuver to be ineffective for hemodynamic en-
hancement. This study analyzed the physiologic mechanisms re-
sponsible for the limited benefits of Trendelenburg positioning.
Methods:   Two-dimensional ultrasonography (Philips HDI
5000, Bothel,WA) was applied to healthy volunteers (four male;
four female) to determine the changes in stroke volume (SV),
cardiac output (CO) and inferior vena cava (IVC) area upon
transition from the supine position to a 6º head-down tilt.
Results:  In the eight subjects studied, the IVC area increased
from an average of 10.76mm to 11.43mm (P<0.05) after tran-
sitioning to the head-down tilt position. Measurements of SV
and CO showed small but clinically insignificant increases (7%
and 8% respectively).
Conclusions: The Frank-Starling mechanism of the heart pro-
vides for the translocation of excess blood and fluid from the
venous to the arterial side of the circulation. In the context of
a functionally insignificant increase in CO during head-down
tilt, the increase in the area of the IVC seen in this study may
indicate a sequestering of blood in the venous system. It is con-
sidered that the weight of the abdominal organs may produce a
fulcrum-like affect on the IVC when the patient is tilted to the
head-down position.  This external pressure would potentially
increase the resistance to venous return and, thereby, limit the
impact of the increased hydrostatic gradient on blood flow.
Physiologic Mechanisms Associated with the Trendelenburg Position
Introduction
The Trendelenburg position, or head-down tilt, has long been
used during the treatment of patients in hemodynamic shock.
According to Shampo, the use of the position has been around
since the time of the Roman writer, Celsus (25 BC- 20 AD),
for the treatment of abdominal injuries.1 The position did not
gain popularity until 1890 when Trendelenburg published his
use of the position during an abdominal approach to repair a
vesicovaginal fistula.1 Since that time, the head-down tilt has
been widely used in abdominal and pelvic surgeries. It was not
until World War I that Walter Cannon made popular the use of
this position for shock patients.2 Trendelenburg positioning has
now found widespread use and it has been reported that up to
99% of all critical care nurses surveyed have used the maneuver
at some point in time.3
It has been generally assumed that the placement of a hemody-
namically unstable patient in a head-down position would cre-
ate a hydrostatic gradient facilitating the venous return of blood
to the heart. An increase in venous return would then enhance
cardiac output (CO) through the Frank-Starling mechanism and
improve tissue perfusion, particularly for vital organs. How-
ever, this seemingly intuitive concept has not been found to be
valid in several well documented studies.
Sibbald et al explored the hemodynamic effects of the Trende-
lenburg position in critically ill normotensive and hypotensive
patients.4 They found that in the normotensive patient group, the
head-down positioning increased the preload, slightly increased
CO, decreased systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and did not
change the mean arterial pressure (MAP). Applying the same
maneuver to the hypotensive patients resulted in a decrease in
CO while the preload remained unchanged and the afterload in-
creased only slightly. They concluded that there were no benefi-
cial effects of this positioning for hypotensive patients.
 American Journal of Clinical Medicine® • Summer 2009 • Volume Six, Number Three
Ostrow et al conducted a similar study on the effects of the
Trendelenburg position on hemodynamics in 23 normotensive
cardiac surgery patients.5 In this study they found no statistical-
ly significant changes in CO, MAP, SVR or tissue oxygenation.
These investigators also concluded that the study did not pro-
vide support for the general use of Trendelenburg positioning as
a way to influence hemodynamic parameters in these patients.
Terai et al studied the hemodynamic effects of the Trendelen-
burg position at one minute and at ten minutes in ten healthy
volunteers.6 The results at one minute showed a marked in-
crease in CO (16%) as well as an increase in left-ventricular end
diastolic volume (LVEDV). These changes, nonetheless, had
returned to baseline by ten minutes. They found that the MAP
did not change from baseline, and while the internal jugular
vein (IJV) velocity decreased and the IJV cross-sectional area
increased at one minute, they both returned to baseline by ten
minutes. The investigators proposed that Trendelenburg posi-
tioning produces a transient autotransfusion effect on hemody-
namics, which is rapidly normalized in euvolemic patients.
Gaffney et al. also studied the autotransfusion effect related to
passive leg raising, a modified version of the Trendelenburg
positioning.7 In this study, the stroke volume (SV) and CO in-
creased transiently after three minutes of leg raising. However,
by seven minutes, the changes had returned to baseline. They
concluded that passive leg-raising does not result in a sustained
increase in CO or SV. More recently, Zorko et al. showed that
Trendelenburg positioning most enhances cardiac output when
intravenous fluids were given concurrently.8
Even though these and many other studies have shown the inef-
fectiveness of Trendelenburg positioning alone to improve he-
modynamic performance, the physiologic rationale surrounding
these findings is still poorly understood.9,10,11,12,13 This study ana-
lyzes the possible physiologic mechanisms responsible for the
observed limited benefits of this common clinical maneuver.
Methods
Two-dimensional ultrasonography (Philips HDI 5000, Bothel,
WA) was applied to healthy volunteers to determine the changes
in SV, CO and inferior vena cava (IVC) area upon transitioning
from the supine attitude to a 6° head-down tilt (HDT) position.
Stroke volume was determined using a standard technique in
which two-dimensional echocardiography images and contin-
uous-wave Doppler measures were used to determine aortic
cross-sectional area (parasternal long-axis view at the point of
cusp insertion) and flow (systolic velocity integral aortic cross-
sectional area).14 From the values of stroke volume, heart rate
and mean arterial pressure, all the other hemodynamic param-
eters are derived. After a five-minute period of equilibration
in the supine position, an image of the IVC was localized at a
level just caudal to the lower liver margin. Measurements of
the cross-sectional IVC area were recorded as well as SV and
CO. While maintaining the ultrasound probe at the same lev-
el, the subjects were rapidly transitioned to the 6° head-down
tilt position (moderate Trendelenburg). After five minutes of
Physiologic Mechanisms Associated with the Trendelenburg Position
25
equilibration in this posture, the IVC area was again measured
as well as the SV and CO. Changes in these measurements
were analyzed using a standard student’s test (significance p <
0.05). The study was performed under the auspices of a NASA
Johnson Space Center Institutional Review Board approved ex-
perimental protocol.
Results
In the eight subjects studied (four female; four male), the IVC
area increased from an average of 10.76mm to 11.43mm (p <
0.05) after transitioning to the head-down tilt position (Figure
1). Measurements of SV and CO showed small, but clinically
insignificant increases (7% and 8% respectively, p<0.05).
Figure 1: Impact of Trendelenburg positioning on IVC area
IVC
Area
(mm)
Supine HDT
Discussion
The Frank-Starling mechanism of the heart provides for the
translocation of blood and fluid from the venous to the arterial
side of the circulation. In a normally functioning circulatory
system, any means through which there is an enhancement in
venous return should result in an increased left ventricular end-
diastolic volume or preload, and, therefore, augment the SV
and CO. The intuitive concept behind the potential beneficial
effects of the Trendelenburg maneuver is grounded in the as-
sumption that placing the patient in the head-down position will
increase venous return by a gravitationally driven force to move
blood toward the heart.1,2 It is further supposed that this move-
ment of blood would result in a sustained increase in cardiac
output in the normally functioning circulation.
The current study and several previously noted studies have not
shown a significant sustained increase in cardiac output of more
than 5 - 10%.4,5,6 Through the application of gravitational hy-
draulics to Pascal’s Principle (pressure = ρgh sin θ) it would
be expected that the force for driving venous return and cardiac
output would increase by ~20% using traditional Trendelenburg
tilt angles. In normotensive, euvolemic patients this differen-
tial between the expected and observed hemodynamic changes
might be explained by a physiologic counter-regulatory modu-
26 American Journal of Clinical Medicine® • Summer 2009 • Volume Six, Number Three
lation of the vascular compliances and resistances in an attempt
to normalize the hemodynamics after a postural perturbation.
There would be no need for an increase in cardiac output or ar-
terial pressures in these circumstances, and the circulatory con-
trol mechanisms would respond to mitigate these state changes.
This explanation would be consistent with the time dependent
changes in CO that have been observed with the HDT maneu-
ver. The transient increases in CO found with a HDT are often
found to recede within minutes of the change in position.6,7
While normal physiologic control responses may account for
the lack of hemodynamic augmentation during Trendelenburg
positioning in the euvolemic, normotensive patient, the same
cannot be concluded for the hypotensive, shock patient.4 In the
hypotensive patient we would expect that normal circulatory
physiologic control mechanisms would work to amplify rather
than modulate any attempts to increase CO. However, hemo-
dynamics in hypotensive patients do not appear to be enhanced
by a Trendelenburg positioning. In some circumstances, the
CO may be even reduced further by a HDT maneuver.4 These
findings suggest that another mechanism beyond the typical cir-
culatory controls is involved in the abrogation of the hemody-
namic response to the Trendelenburg positioning.
In our study, a statistically significant increase in subhepatic
IVC area (p<0.05) was found within five minutes of placing
subjects in the HDT position. It is thought that this finding is a
result of the abdominal viscera acting as a fulcrum on the IVC
while in the Trendelenburg position in a manner similar to that
previously described by Gauer.13 Such a compression on the
IVC would result in an impedance to venous return to the heart,
decreasing preload, and, thereby, restricting the impact of the
increased hydrostatic gradient on CO. There are findings in the
literature that support this idea.
Reuter et al. conducted a study on the hemodynamic effects
of the Trendelenburg position in 12 hypovolemic patients post-
cardiac surgery.15 By measuring the intrathoracic blood volume
by transpulmonary indicator dilution, they found that the HDT
maneuver caused only a slight increase in preload volume and
did not significantly change CO or MAP. They concluded that
the Trendelenburg positioning causes a no significant increase
in venous return to the heart.
While the impact of small increases in vena cava resistance on
venous return and CO were first described by Guyton more than
40 years ago, these effects are not always considered in many
clinical scenarios.16,17 However, external pressures on the vena
cava are known to commonly influence hemodynamics during
laparascopic surgery and in the perinatal condition.18,19,20 Plac-
ing patients in the Trendelenburg position is a very common
practice in clinical medicine.3 The utility of this maneuver is
in question, though the reasons for its failures are poorly un-
derstood.2,10 Evidence supports the idea that changes in the
resistance to venous return may play a central role in the limi-
tations.13,14 Even in the supine position, the abdominal organs
appear to have some compressive effect on the central venous
system.13 In this study, changes in the venous system caudal to
Physiologic Mechanisms Associated with the Trendelenburg Position
the liver and diaphragm were measured. It seems likely that
the positioning and relative weights of these organs make them
more likely candidates for providing a fulcrum force. If the
abdominal organs are limiting venous return, it may be possible
to modify the maneuver to circumvent this problem. While we
used a 6⁰ head-down tilt position in this study, a different angle
might result in more optimal hemodynamics. The current clini-
cal study is limited in its scope and represents a preliminary
analysis of the potential associated mechanisms involved. Fur-
ther study is required for a better understanding of all the physi-
ologic mechanisms in play during Trendelenburg positioning
and to determine the best postural angle needed to optimize he-
modynamics in patients with circulatory shock.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Kristi J. James, MD, and Misty Rea,
MD, for their work in gathering references.
Richard L. Summers, MD, is Professor of Emergency Medicine
and Research Director for Emergency Medicine Research at
the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
James R. Thompson, MD, is Associate Professor of Emergency
Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
LouAnn H. Woodward, MD, is Associate Professor of Emer-
gency Medicine and Interim Dean of the School of Medicine at
the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
David S. Martin, BS, is Chief Echocardiographer for the
NASA Cardiovascular Laboratory at the Lyndon B. Johnson
Space Center in Houston.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: By AJCM® policy, all au-
thors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and
other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article
that might create any potential conflict of interest. The authors have
stated that no such relationships exist.
References
1. Shampo MA: Friedrich Trendelenburg: The Trendelenburg position.
Journal of Pelvic Surgery 2001;7:327-9.
2. Johnson S, Henderson SO: Myth: The Trendelenburg position improves
circulation in cases of shock. Can J Emerg Med 2004;6:48-9.
3. Ostrow CL. Use of the Trendelenburg position by critical care nurses:
Trendelenburg survey. Am J Crit Care. 1997;6:172-6.
4. Sibbald WJ, Paterson NA, Holliday RL, et al: The Trendelenburg position:
hemodynamic effects in hypotensive and normotensive patients. Crit Care
Med 1979;7:218-24.
5. Ostrow CL, Hupp E, Topjian D: The effect of Trendelenburg and
modified Trendelenburg positions on cardiac output, blood pressure, and
oxygenation: a preliminary study. Am J Crit Care 1994;3:382-6.
6. Terai C, Anada H, Matsushima S, et al.: Effects of mild Trendelenburg on
central hemodynamics and internal jugular vein velocity, cross-sectional
area, and flow. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13:255-8.
7. Gaffney FA, Bastian BC, Thal ER, et al.: Passive leg raising does not
produce a significant or sustained autotransfusion effect. J Trauma 1982;
22:190-3.
 American Journal of Clinical Medicine® • Summer 2009 • Volume Six, Number Three
8. Zorko N, Kamenik M, Starc V. The effect of Trendelenburg position,
lactated Ringer’s solution and 6% hydroxyethyl starch solution on cardiac
output after spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analog. 2009;108: 655-9.
9. Doering LV. The effect of positioning on hemodynamics and gas exchange
in the critically ill: a review. Am J Crit Care. 1993;2:208-16.
10. Shammas A, Clark AP. Trendelenburg positioning to treat acute
hypotension: helpful or harmful? Clin Nurse Spec. 2007;21:181-7.
11. Sing RF, O’Hara D, Sawyer MA, Marino PL. Trendelenburg position and
oxygen transport in hypovolemic adults. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:564-7.
12. Larsen PN, Moesgaard F, Madsen P, Pedersen M, Secher NH. 24
Subcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide tensions during head-up tilt-
induced central hypovolaemia in humans. Scand J Clin Lab Invest
1996;56:17-22.
13. Gauer OH, Thron HL (1965). Postural changes in the circulation. In
Handbook of Physiology, section 2, The Cardiovascular system, vol.3,
Peripheral Circulation and Organ Blood Flow, ed. Sheperd JT & Abboud
FM, pp. 2409-2439. American Physiological Society, Washington, DC.
14. Waters WW, Platts SH, Mitchell BM, Whitson PA, Meck JV. Plasma
volume restoration with salt tablets and water after bed rest prevents
Physiologic Mechanisms Associated with the Trendelenburg Position
27
orthostatic hypotension and changes in supine hemodynamic and endocrine
variables. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005;288:H839-47.
15. Reuter DA, Felbinger TW, Schmidt C, et al: Trendelenburg positioning
after cardiac surgery: effects on intrathoracic blood volume index and
cardiac performance. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003; 20:17-20.
16. Guyton AC, Satterfield JH, Harris JW. Dynamics of central venous
resistance with observations on static blood pressure. Am J Physiol.
1952;169:691-9.
17. Guyton AC, Abernathy B, Langston JB, et al. Relative importance of
venous and arterial resistances in controlling venous return and cardiac
output. Am J Physiol. 1959;196:1008-14.
18. Hirvonen EA, Nuutinen LS, Kauko M: Hemodynamic changes due to
Trendelenburg positioning and pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic
hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1995; 39:949-55.
19. Kinsella SM, Lee A, Spencer JA: Maternal and fetal effects of the supine
and pelvic tilt positions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1990; 36:11-7.
20. Kunzel W: Vena cava occlusion syndrome. Cardiovascular parameters
and uterine blood supply. Fortschr Med 1976; 94:949-53.